Saturday, July 30, 2011

The video also showed that the police fired the tear gas canisters horizontally into the enclosed zone non-stopped. The police action was evidently malicious and intended to cause maximum harm to the peaceful group without warning. It was unprovoked and unwarranted action. It was police brutality...

The video also showed that the police fired the tear gas canisters horizontally into the enclosed zone non-stop. At least 12 shells were fired in a matter of a couple of minutes. 3 persons suffered injury to the head. The injuries suffered by Anwar Ibrahim’s bodyguard Fayyadh Afiq Al Baqry who had his left cheekbone crushed were particularly serious

Friday, July 29, 2011

PETALING JAYA: Penang Wanita MCA wants to know why not a single state Drainage and Irrigation Department (DID) project was given to Chinese contractors.

Its chairman Tan Cheng Liang said she believed the Chinese contractors had submitted tender applications for the projects.

"Has the state deemed their applications incomplete.

"I am aghast and unable to comprehend why isn't a single contract awarded to a Chinese contractor," said Tan in response to Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng's statement on July 27, that contractors in all five districts for the DID projects were Malays, bumiputras and Indian Muslims of which women accounted for 20%.

Tan said since the DAP took over the state, not a single Chinese contractor in the five districts were given projects.

"The DAP-led state government should not simply award contracts to bumiputras to make themselves look fair.

"They should ensure that the contractors are capable of guaranteeing a successful completion of the projects and there will not be problems later," she said.

Tan said there was proof that despite the support from the Chinese for Lim and DAP, the interest of the Chinese had been threatened after DAP came into power.

"They realise that they cannot rely on the Chinese forever but I hope the curry favour among other races is not done at the expense of the Chinese," she said. Source here

KUALA LUMPUR, July 26 — The Roman Catholic Church here will lobby for a non-Islamic affairs ministry now that Malaysia has formalised ties with the Vatican, says Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam.

The head of the national Catholic Bishops’ Conference has also resurrected the set-up of an interreligious council, among a slew of measures he believes will help peacefully end the current ethnic, cultural and religious conflict in Malaysia.

“I had communicated to the Holy Father that we hope to see the establishment of an Inter-Religious Council [IRC] that would include key leaders and representatives from all religious groups; the establishment of a Ministry and the appointment of a full Minister to look into non-Islamic affairs,” said Pakiam in an formal message to all Catholics today, after his return from accompanying the Malaysian government delegation to visit Pope Benedict XVI in Rome last week.

The idea for a non-Islamic affairs ministry was first raised by the Anglican bishop of Kuching, Datuk Bolly Lapok in March this year following the Home Ministry’s seizure of 35,000 Malay bibles — or Al-Kitab as they are locally called — imported from Indonesia and meant for the Bumiputera Christian market here.

His call, aimed at pressuring the federal government to set up a special portfolio to take care of non-Muslim affairs, appears to have gained traction with the establishment of diplomatic relations with the head of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic archbishop said he had kept the pope informed of the “hopes and aspirations of the local church” through Archbishop Leopoldo Girelli who is at the moment still an apostolic delegate to Malaysia.

Pakiam added that the Church also hopes Putrajaya allows Catholic seminaries to resume regional priest training here; promote Christian-Catholic education and teacher training courses; and set up bilateral links between Islamic institutions in Malaysia and the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies among other steps.

“I believe that these points, if they had not already been raised in the discussions between the Holy Father and the Prime Minister, will be raised in the future through diplomatic channels,” he said.

Pakiam said diplomatic relations was beneficial for Catholics as it gave them a “greater voice in Malaysian society” in order to prophetically proclaim the values which it defends and safeguards.

Penang is the first state in the country to set up an executive council portfolio to handle non-Muslim religious issues in early February this year, in conjunction with the United Nations’ Interfaith Harmony Week.

The idea for the IRC was first mooted in the 1980s but was spiked early on following objections from Muslim groups such as the Islamic Development Department (Jakim).

The Najib administration formed its special committee to promote harmony and understanding among religious adherents in April last year but the interfaith panel appears to have stymied following the death of its coordinator, Datuk Ilani Isahak on February 24.

Monkey was also in Vatican a few months back...nice place long queues....

But worth the wait especially if you wanna check out the Sistine Chapel....

Now back to the "Malaysia has formalised ties with the Vatican" statement by Pakiam

Lets look at the official statement from Wisma Putra

Malaysia Establishes Diplomatic Relation with the Holy See

(Vatican City)

Malaysia and the Holy Seein the Vatican have agreed to establish formal diplomatic relations, following the footsteps of other Muslim-majority nations such as Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, the Arab League and majority members of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Prime Minister, Dato' Sri Najib Tun Razak today concluded his working visit to the Holy See after paying a courtesy call on Pope Benedict XVI and Secretary of State (equivalent to Premier) Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone at the Apostolic Palace in Castel Gandolfo, Rome which is the summer residence of the Pope.

In the meeting with the Pope, Najib put forth his concept for a Global Movement of Moderates to counter extremism of all forms. He first made this call when delivering his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2010. Najib also said as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, Malaysia has drawn on the values of moderation to ensure continued harmony, stability and prosperity.

Najib added that Malaysia was keen to share its experience with the world, and that is why Malaysia is committed to forging links and alliances with like minded countries to promote world peace and harmony. He said this is the main reason why Malaysia established diplomatic relations with the Holy See.

"The world is at a crossroads, the forces of irrationality and discord are threatening our long-cherish and hard-gained stability, and prosperity. What is worst is that certain quarters use religion to justify acts of terrorism. Malaysia and the Holy See are committed to surmount such negative forces by employing the powers of reason and moderation," said Najib.

Najib added, “The Holy See recognises Malaysia’s commitment to promote moderation as a global doctrine. Our effort in managing our diversity despite various hurdles and challenges is a cogent reminder that diverse societies can succeed. However, we must remain vigilant and confront pernicious forces that threaten to unravel this harmony. We must also do more by adopting an inclusive approach to administration and governance, and ensuring the Malaysian sun shines on every Malaysian.”

Najib also raised the possibility of forging closer links with the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue headed by Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran and the Pontifical Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies. He said the Institute of Islamic Understanding (IKIM), Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies and the Department of National Unity and Integration (JPNIN) will spearhead this initiative from Malaysia.

Let's check out some basic facts about Holy See and Vatican in the eyes of the International Law...

IV. THE HOLY SEE AND THE VATICAN IN INTERNATIONAL LAW TODAY
When considering the close relation between the Holy See and Vatican City State on the one hand and the traditional criteria of international law on the other hand, it is not that easy to determine the nature of the Holy See and Vatican City State. In international legal doctrine, several opinions are defended.
A. The General Ideas: An Overview
Much has been published on the international position of the Holy See, the Roman-Catholic Church and Vatican City State.In the older doctrine, one can find the idea that the Holy See and the Roman-Catholic Church do not have legal personality, although the political and social role of the Holy See is recognized, as is the possibility for having diplomatic relations. The Italian lawyer G. Arangio Ruiz writes in 1925 that the old doctrine, according to which only states have legal personality in international law, is obsolete. However, this does not mean that the Holy See therefore has immediate legal personality in international law. Another Italian lawyer, A.C. Jemolo, does not accept this theory and claims that this question can be solved rather easily. If states and the Holy See wish for their relations to be subject to international law, it is to be accepted that the Holy See is a subject of international law.The discussion becomes even more complex when the so-called Roman Question is solved: by creating Vatican City State, a new element is brought into the discussion.

What is now the added value of Vatican CityState, and what is its relation to the Holy See? The French canon lawyer Roland Minnerath, formerly in diplomatic service of the Holy See, before being appointed professor at the University of Strasbourg and currently archbishop of Dijon, after a careful analysis, can make a distinction between several theories. According to the dualistic theory, a second subject of international law is created by the Lateran Treaty in 1929, separate from the already existing subject of international law (the Holy See): Vatican City State. This is however only one theory. According to the monistic theory, there is only one subject of international law, although it is not clear what this subject is. There are three possible candidates. In the first hypothesis, the Holy See is the only subject of international law.Vatican City State is only a territory with extra-territorial rights, but not a separate subject of international law. The second hypothesis is exactly the opposite: because of the Lateran Treaty, the Holy See is no longer a subject of international law -- only Vatican City State is a subject of international law. The Holy See however can use the advantages of Vatican City State. A third hypothesis is somewhat related to the first one, at least with regard to the result: Vatican City State is not a subject, but an object of international law, because all its competences are taken over by the Holy See.

The key issue is thus the point of reference: in order to have a subject of international law, we need, at least according to the traditional doctrine, a state. A definition of a state can be found in the Montevideo Convention of 1933: a state has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with the other states. In many manuals on international law, these will be the criteria used to define a state. Consequently, the authors have difficulties defining the status of the Holy See and Vatican City State. When dealing with subjects of international law and international personality, some authors will agree that the status of the Holy See as an international person was accepted by its partners and that Vatican City State, although closely linked with the Holy See, can be considered as a state.Others will categorize both entities as entities sui generis,comparable to the Sovereign Order of Jerusalem and Malta, and yet others will catalogue them under the subjectheading “Other entities – Selected anomalies,” together with the already mentioned Sovereign Order of Malta.

It is not uncommon any more to defend the position that the Holy See is a subject of international law and has international legal personality, not because the Pope is sovereign of Vatican City State, but because first and foremost he is the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

We could conclude thus far that both the Holy See and Vatican City State are subjects of international law and have international legal personality. The link between both is the pope, and the connecting factor is the Lateran Treaty. The whole situation is sometimes summarized as follows: Vatican City State was created as a mini-state to safeguard the absolute freedom and independence of the Holy See.

Globally countries in world will have their diplomatic relationship with the Holy See, this has created some problems especially with regards to Countries that requires Separation of the Church and the State in its constitution, take for instance the USA, when it finally had diplomatic relationship with the Holy See

Friday, July 22, 2011

The DAP parliamentary leader said any layman would agree that being forced to commit suicide by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers was not the same as suicide but was “equal to homicide”.

“You cannot have a situation it’s not homicide but (rather) forced to commit suicide,” he told The Malaysian Insider. Source here

Before I begin today, allow me to re-offer my condolences to the Family of Teo Beng Hock, hope that one day you will find closure to the matter and I sincerely hope that those responsible will kena kau kau with all the legal might that the Government can do within the confines of the law.

The family have responded

ALOR GAJAH: The family of the late Teoh Beng Hock has refused to accept the Royal Commission of Inquiry's (RCI) findings that the political aide had committed suicide.

Teoh's mother Teng Shuw Hor, 58, insisted her son was murdered.

“I will not accept that my son would take his own life.

“My son was murdered,” she said when met at the family home at Taman Seri Kelemak here yesterday. source here

Grief reactions that are the normal result of losing a family member, including somatic symptoms, hopelessness, anger, guilt, loss of social support, and selfdestructive behaviour which supports the Calhoun et al. study (1982).

In addition, reactions that resulted from experiencing a death other than by natural causes and perceived as having been avoidable, including feeling stigmatised and shamed by the death, feeling abandoned by the spouse, and perceiving the death as preventable.

A third type of reaction included grief reactions that resulted from the shock and pain of experiencing a sudden death, regardless of its cause, including searching for an acceptable explanation for the death.

Finally, the fourth type of reaction seems to have resulted from additional trauma of dealing with the suicidal nature of the death, including feeling rejected by the deceased, feeling embarrassment over the mode of the death, wondering about the spouse's motivation for not living longer, feeling as if the deceased were somehow getting even with the survivor by dying, and concealing the mode of death by saying that it was something other than what it was Source here

"I am just not convinced that Teoh would commit suicide simply because of aggressive interrogations by MACC officers. There is no credible reason or motive why he would take his own life. He was a young man about to get married. He has every reason to stay alive. He did not do anything wrong. When a person is innocent, his will to live is stronger and also to prove his innocence," he said. Source here

Simon says what?

You'll be hearing more of such similar arguments from every tom, dick and harry out there who feels that their opinion matters to the issue at hand...

Let us look at the National Statistics on Suicide shall we...

This inference is drawn from analysis of data from suicidal cases from the University Malaya Medical Centre mortuary. This study also looked at sex, age, social, and employment factors. Kuala Lumpur has sizeable populations of Muslims, Chinese, Indians and Indonesian, etc. This study is based on 251 cases of suicide that were reported at the University Malaya Medical Centre from 2000 to 2004. Malaysia has a population of 22,662,365 people with 3 major ethnic groups: Malay (58%), Chinese (24%), and Indians (8%) with a minority of "others" (10%), which includes foreigners, Sabahan, and Sarawakian. This research found suicides of 164 male (65%) and 87 female (35%) victims. Their age ranged from 15 to 80 years. The age group from 21 to 30 had the highest total cases of suicide (83 of 251; 33.1%). Among ethnic groups highest rate of suicide was among Chinese with a total of 120 cases (120 of 251; 47.8%). As far as lone method of suicide is concerned, hangings accounted for the highest proportion of cases (108 of 251; 43%). Among ethnic groups, jumping from height was the commonest method used by Chinese (49 of 120; 41%), Malay (9 of 16; 56%), and others (15 of 28; 53.4%); whereas, hanging was the commonest method of committing suicide by Indians (49 of 87); Muslims showed the lowest cases of suicide (18 of 251; 7.2%). In poisoning group Indian was the highest ethnic group who used this method (20 of 37; 54.1%). Source Suicide and ethnicity in Malaysia.

That was 2000- 2004 data, let us see how things have changed over the years...refer here for 2008 Report

Thursday, July 21, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, July 21 — A royal commission has ruled that Teoh Beng Hock committed suicide as a result of pressure from aggressive and continuous questioning by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers.

The MACC officers had wanted to pressure Teoh to be a witness in their case against a DAP assemblyman for alleged abuse of public funds.

Duty of Coroner or Magistrate holding inquiry to forward copy of finding24. When an inquest or inquiry is held into the death of any person, the Coroner or Magistrate holding such inquest or inquiry shall, within twenty-four hours after the conclusion thereof, forward to the Superintendent-Registrar for the registration area within which the death took place or the body of such person was found a certificate setting forth the cause of death as ascertained at such inquiry, and such other particulars as are required for the purpose of registration, and the cause of death disclosed in such certificate shall be entered in the register.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

SURABAYA, July 16 — Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin today said his ministry was readying a study on a complete revamp of the existing education system, which should be complete by year’s end.

The deputy prime minister and education minister said the study will go beyond the scope of the 1956 Razak Report and encompass Malaysian education in its entirety.

“We will table it to the Cabinet and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak. If he agrees that it is high time for us to make a total review, then we’ll do it,” Muhyiddin was quoted as saying by Bernama Online.

Critics of the education system say that standards have regressed over the years, resulting in the churning out of graduates that are unemployable.

The system has also fallen victim to political interests, most notably in the shift towards English in the Teaching of Science and Math in English (PPSMI) in 2003, which was abandoned for a return to Bahasa Melayu under the “Upholding the Malay Language and Strengthening the Command of English” (MBMMBI) policy.

Today, Muhyiddin said there were now growing calls to evaluate the system for efficacy and to modernise its objectives to meet the government’s aim of achieving developed nation status.

He added that while great investments have been made towards improving education in Malaysia, this was often done without taking a holistic approach.

“This (the revamp) is not only to fulfil their (the students’) needs, but for the future development of the nation.

“Many issues were acknowledged in the [Razak Report,] most of them have been implemented, but today’s development requires us to review the direction of our national education for the next 50 or 30 years,” he said. Source Here

Let us look back at the Razak Report

More specifically the Ultimate Objective of the 1956 Report...go here and here

Should the Government use all available resources not to allow the repeat of July 9

Or should BERSIH deploy a new strategy to raise awareness in a peaceful manner?

Ambigious Ambiga sent a signal in her July 12 Press Conference...

“I ask the rakyat to show continuing support by wearing something yellow every Saturday,” she said. “I also call on them to do their bit by ensuring that their family and friends are registered voters. If one person gets five others to register this will definitely bump up voter numbers.”

Ambiga also laid to rest speculation of any future rally and firmly said that there were no immediate plans for one.

“You don’t hold rallies at the drop of a hat,” she said. “Such events are done for very good reasons. But we should carry on doing whatever we can to support the cause. I think we can work it through if the government stops demonising Bersih 2.0 and start listening to the people.” More here

I'm speculating on her potential strategy for the next phase of BERSIH campaign.....

If I was Ambiga......

I would not make it confrontational.......

I would not make it big........

Instead I would go deep........be Covert and APPEAR suddenly in Various Places in Malaysia.....

KUALA LUMPUR: The Steering Committee of Bersih 2.0 is challenging the Home Minister's order declaring the movement as an unlawful society.

Committee chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan and 13 others filed an application for a judicial review at the High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) registry to quash the July 1 order made under Section 5 of the Societies Act declaring that the coalition was an unlawful society.

The Home Minister, Inspector-General of Police and the Government have been named as respondents in the application.

The group said the order had declared Bersih to be an unlawful society because it was allegedly “being used for purposes prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia and public order”. More here

Let us look at Section 5 of the Societies Act

Power of the Minister to declare a society unlawful
5. (1) It shall be lawful for the Minister in his absolute discretion by order to declare unlawful any society or branch or class or description of any societies which in his opinion, is or is being used for purposes prejudicial to or incompatible with the interest of the security of Malaysia or any part thereof, public order or morality.

Let us look at another case of Illegal Assembly by An Illegal Society shall we...

KUALA LUMPUR: Twenty-one people, including five women, pleaded not guilty at the Magistrate's Court here Thursday to the charge of jointly participating in an illegal assembly over the controversial ‘Interlok’ issue.

All the accused were aged between 18 and 57 and the charge was read before Magistrate Zulkipli Abdullah.

The accused, who were represented by defence counsel M. Raman, were charged with committing the offence at Little India Jalan Tun Sambanthan, Brickfields, at 2.30pm on Feb 13, under Section 43 of the Societies Act 1996 which carries a maximum jail term of three years, or a fine of RM5,000 or both, upon conviction. More here

What is Section 43? Actually lets look at the whole legal implication of an Unlawful Society

Unlawful societies
41. (1) For the purposes of this Act any of the following societies shall be an unlawful society, that is to say—
(a) a society or a branch thereof which has been declared unlawful by the Minister under section 5;
(b) a society or a branch thereof which is not registered under section 7;
(c) a branch of a registered society, where the branch was established in contravention of subsection 12(1), orcontinues to exist in contravention of the proviso to subsection 12(3);Societies 47
(d) a society or a branch thereof which has had its registration cancelled under section 2A, 13, 14 or 16.
*(2) Where a society is unlawful under subsection (1), or its registration is cancelled under this Act, every branch of the society shall immediately thereupon be unlawful and the approval of the Registrar for its establishment shall be deemed to be revoked, and where a branch of a society is unlawful under subsection (1) or the approval of the Registrar for its establishment is deemed to be revoked as aforesaid under this subsection, every branch subordinate to that branch shall immediately thereupon be unlawful and the approval of the Registrar for its establishment shall be deemed to be revoked.Penalties on office-bearer, etc., of an unlawful society
42. Any office-bearer and any person managing or assisting in the management of any unlawful society shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding **fifteen thousand ringgit or to both.Penalties on member of unlawful society
43. Any person who is or acts as a member of an unlawful society or attends a meeting of an unlawful society or who pays money or gives any aid to or for the purposes of an unlawful society shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to both.

Persons allowing unlawful society on premises

44. Any person who knowingly allows a meeting of an unlawful society, or of members of an unlawful society, to be held in any house, building or place belonging to or occupied by him, or over which he has control, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding ***ten thousand ringgit or to both.
*NOTE—Subsection 41(2) was inserted by Act A700 and shall be deemed to have come into force
and become an integral part of this Act as from the date of commencement of this Act.
**NOTE—Previously “ten thousand ringgit”–see the Societies (Amendment) Act 1998 [Act A1027].
***NOTE—Previously “five thousand ringgit”–see the Societies (Amendment) Act 1998 [Act A1027].48 Laws of Malaysia ACT 335Penalty for inciting, etc., a person to become a member of an unlawful society
45. (1) Any person who incites, induces or invites another person to become a member of, or to assist in the management of, an unlawful society shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years or to a fine not exceeding *fifteen thousand ringgit or to both.
(2) Any person who uses any violence, threat or intimidation towards any other person in order to induce him to become a member of or to assist in the management of an unlawful society shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding **fifteen thousand ringgit or to both.Penalty for procuring subscription or aid for an unlawful society
46. Any person who procures or attempts to procure from any other person any subscription or aid for the purposes of an unlawful society shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding ***ten thousand ringgit or to both.Publishing, etc., propaganda of an unlawful society
47. Any person who prints, publishes, displays, sells or exposes for sale, or transmits through the post or who, without lawful authority or excuse, has in his possession any placard, newspaper, book, circular, pictorial representation or any other document or writing whatsoever or which is issued or appears to be issued by or on behalf of or in the interests of an unlawful society shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding ****five thousand ringgit or to both, and any books, periodicals, pamphlet, poster, proclamation, newspaper, letter or any other document or writing in respect of which such person shall have been convicted shall be forfeited.Acting on behalf of or representing an unlawful society
48. (1) Any person who in any manner acts on behalf of, or represents, or assists, whether in a professional capacity or otherwise howsoever, any unlawful society, or any person who was an officebearer thereof as if he continues to be an officebearer thereof, or any body which was the governing body of the society or of any branch thereof as if it continues to be such governing body, in relation to any matter, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding fifteen thousand ringgit or both.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an appeal by an unlawful society under section 18, or to any proceedings in any court in respect of any matter involving such society, or any person who was its office-bearer, or a body which was its governing body or the governing body of any branch thereof. Source here

The Court of Appeal had last month rejected Chua’s appeal against a conviction for biting a policeman based on the deputy public prosecutor (DPP)’s objection that it was filed after the 14-day window.

The decision effectively upholds last year’s High Court decision to uphold his conviction and sentence of a RM2,000 fine in default of two months’ jail, thus throwing his seat status into question.
Under Article 48 of the Federal Constitution and preceding cases, Chua stands disqualified as an MP because he was fined “not less than” RM2,000.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar has declared it would be “irresponsible” if no lawmaker informs the House of Chua’s conviction and possible disqualification. More here

Now let us look at Article 48 shall we....

48.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if -

(a) he is and has been found or declared to be of unsound mind; or

(b) he is an undischarged bankrupt; or

(c) he holds an office of profit; or

(d) having been nominated for election to either House of Parliament or to the Legislative Assembly of a State, or having acted as election agent to a person so nominated, he has failed to lodge any return of election expenses required by law within the time and in the manner so required; or

(e) he has been convicted of an offence by a court of law in the Federation (or, before Malaysia Day, in the territories comprised in the State of Sabah or Sarawak or in Singapore) and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than two thousand ringgit and has not received a free pardon; or

(f) he has voluntarily acquired citizenship of, or exercised rights of citizenship in, any country outside the Federation or has made a declaration of allegiance to any country outside the Federation.

(2) Federal law may impose, for such periods as may be specified thereby, disqualification for membership of either House of Parliament on persons committing offences in connection with elections; and any person who has been convicted of such an offence or has in proceedings relating to an election been proved guilty of an act constituting such an offence, shall be disqualified accordingly for a period so specified.

(3) The disqualification of a person under paragraph (d) or paragraph (e) of Clause (1) may be removed by the Yang di-pertuan Agong and shall, if not so removed, cease at the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which the return mentioned in the said paragraph (d) was required to be lodged, or, as the case may be, the date on which the person convicted as mentioned in the said paragraph (e) was released from custody or the date on which the fine mentioned in the said paragraph (e) was imposed on such person and a person shall not be disqualified under paragraph (f) of clause (1) by reason only of anything done by him before he became a citizen.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Article, where a member of either House of Parliament becomes disqualified from continuing to be a member thereof pursuant to paragraph (e) of Clause (1) or under a federal law made in pursuance of Clause (2) -

(a) the disqualification shall take effect upon the expiry of fourteen days from the date on which he was -

(i) convicted and sentenced as specified in the aforesaid paragraph (e); or

(ii) convicted of an offence or proved guilty of an act under a federal law made in pursuance of Clause (2); or

(b) if within the period of fourteen days specified in paragraph (a) an appeal or any other court proceedings is brought in respect of such conviction or sentence,or in respect of being so convicted or proved guilty, as the case may be, the disqualification shall take effect upon the expiry of fourteen days from the date on which such appeal or other court proceedings is disposed of by the court; or

(c) if within the period specified in paragraph (a) or the period after the disposal of the appeal or other court proceedings specified in paragraph (b) there is filed a petition for a pardon, such disqualification shall take effect immediately upon the petition being disposed of.

(5) Clause (4) shall not apply for the purpose nomination, election or appointment of any person to either House of Parliament, for which purpose the disqualification shall take effect immediately upon the occurrence of the event referred to in paragraph (e) of Clause (1) or in Clause (2), as the case may be. Source here

So .......u need a summary of where I'm heading to?

Perhaps some key questions....to the folks who are supposed to UPHOLD THE LAW

IF BERSIH IS AN UNLAWFUL ORGANISATION THAT HAS DEFIED POLICE ORDERS NOT TO HOLD THE RALLY IN STADIUM MERDEKA....

NOT ONLY THAT THEY HAVE ALSO DEFIED POLICE ORDERS NOT TO ENTER KUALA LUMPUR

HOW MANY OF THEM WHERE AT THE RALLY TODAY?

IF YOU CAN CHARGE THOSE INDIANS WHO PARTICIPATED IN A SMALL RALLY AT KLCC

WHY SHOULD YOU LET THESE PEOPLE GO?

CHARGE THEM (not the stupid pak turuts lembu dunggu of course....just go after the Ring Leaders who promoted this Organisation and the Illegal Rally) UNDER THE LAW!!!!

MAKE SURE YOU WIN!!!

THEN CALL THE MOST "CLEANEST" AND HIGH TECH (WITH BIOMETRIC VALIDATION) GENERAL ELECTION....YOU SHOULD ALSO CONDUCT A NATIONAL REFERENDUM ON THE AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION (mmm....this one monkey thinks is a violation of my private rights) KASI SELIT A QUESTION WITH THE KERTAS UNDI.....AND IF THERE IS AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE RAKYAT SUPPORTS THE IDEA....PUT IN A MOTION IN PARLIAMENT.....IF NOT GO FLY A TEAPOT.....

Minds are like parachutes; they work best when open. -Lord Thomas Dewer

Why is he still PM?

ID Comment

Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong.They are the ones to attain felicity Ali Imran 104....Al-Quran

Read this before Scrolling any further

Do let me know what you think.....but i'm not responsible for what u say......

What i write here is my personal view....i do not expect that to be relied upon for any "activities" which can result in any form of value nor have any impact what so ever to your well being.........what i expect is for you to waste a few minutes of your life on some mouse scroll activities...